The Review

All posts, comments andstatements made on IR are those of the authors only. Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts, comments and statements. We reserve the right to deny or remove comments. Content may not be used without permission of the author.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Thorner/Ingold: Special Counsel Mueller or Grand Inquisitor?

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold -

Imagine a world where a special prosecutor was appointed and given authority higher than any official or appointee had heretofore been granted. Imagine there were no bounds to his inquiries, and he made use of torture to extract confessions, but more importantly, to extract accusations against others, who were then prosecuted. There was no time limit imposed on the inquiry, only results.

The year was 1478, and the Catholic Rulers Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain appointed the Board of Inquisition, headed by the Grand Inquisitor, to seek out and prosecute heresy, which as defined by the Church, was any deviation from Catholic dogma.

The Spanish Inquisition lasted 300 years and resulted in the prosecution of over 150,000 individuals and the execution of up to 5000 individuals. Among its victims were Spanish Jews and Muslims, who, at the time, were either compelled to convert or leave the country. Significant is that all these proceedings were conducted in utmost secrecy, that is, apart from the public executions. In condescension to selected moral principles, inquisitors were only authorized to use “bloodless” methods of torture, including what is now known as “water boarding.”

There were many imitations of the Inquisition to follow, including the Star Chamber of King Henry VIII in the 16th century to prosecute those resisting his English Reformation and the one by Prince Metternick in Austria against “enemies of the state” in 18th century Austria. In the archives of history, the Inquisition list is long and chilling.

Fast forward to 2016, when Robert Mueller is appointed special counsel by the highest acting official in the Justice Department to prosecute an investigation for possible Russian interference in the election, in a manner said to have benefited then candidate Donald Trump. This investigation proceeds against nearly everyone associated with the Trump campaign, resulting in charges from actions totally unrelated to the stated purpose of the investigation. While allegedly justified under the application of law, these prosecutions are no less than “bloodless" torture to coerce testimony against President Trump and others. Besides the stigma of criminal charges and possible imprisonment, the cost of defending oneself in federal court is staggering to bring ruin on the family as well. This was elegantly expressed by the federal judge T. S. Ellis, hearing Mueller’s case against Paul Manafort.

In the case of General Flynn, there was a threat to prosecute his son, which likely prompted Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI (even though the FBI made no such allegations). There is even a veiled threat to investigate Trump’s children, who run successful businesses of their own. As sitting President, Trump is virtually unassailable with criminal prosecution under Article 2 of the Constitution. (President Clinton was brought to court under civil litigation.)

Exactly what is the authority of Robert Mueller? That is a secret, a top secret according to the cabal supporting this investigation. When does it end? No one can say, because that is not defined other than to “get Trump" and remove him from office by any means possible.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who joined Trump's legal team about three weeks ago, had as his stated goal of wrapping up the Mueller investigation in a week or two. This is not to be, as on Monday, May 7, 2018 Giuiliani told CBS News correspondent Paula Reid Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's office has rejected proposals to allow Mr. Trump to answer questions from investigators in writing. This was the president's legal team preferred way for a possible interview to protect Mr. Trump from the possibility of lying or misleading investigators, which is a criminal offense.

Former Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), when appearing on MSNBC on Tuesday, May 8, told MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle that the Mueller investigation needs to “put up or shut up” on results.

“The Russia thing in the minds of the American people and the Congress is starting to get old. Pretty soon, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller’s going to have to put up or shut up."

But what are the odds of the Mueller investigation ending soon? Derangement and hatred exists with the Democrat base, among Democrat leaders, with the so-called Deep Bureaucratic State, and even crosses over to renegade "Never Trump" Republicans. This hatred is exacerbated by a progressive media that has become an arm of the Democratic Party. Telling is that about 90% of media coverage of Trump was negative in the last quarter, January through April.

A new CBS News poll finds that most Americans now believe the investigation is politically motivated The poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Mueller’s investigation is politically motivated, while 44 percent think it is justified.

As an outsider Trump was able to defeat the establishment. What was perceived as given, that Hillary would win, would have permitted the deep state to continue unchallenged. Furthermore, all the corruption that permeated the Obama administration would have forever remained hidden from the American people.

Hopefully the Mueller investigation will soon collapse on its own accord, and may justice also be served to expose a corrupt justice system at the very top that is attempting to destroy the Trump presidency (this signifies treasonous activity), while it protects those who were guilty of criminal misdeeds in the Obama administration. Ironically, practically everything Trump has been accused of by his enemies have proven to be done by those same naysayers. If you want to know what the Democrats are up to, just listen to what they accuse Trump of doing, including collusion with the Russians, appealing to “identity groups” (in Trump’s case, middle America), and abuse of women.

Comments

Thorner/Ingold: Special Counsel Mueller or Grand Inquisitor?

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold -

Imagine a world where a special prosecutor was appointed and given authority higher than any official or appointee had heretofore been granted. Imagine there were no bounds to his inquiries, and he made use of torture to extract confessions, but more importantly, to extract accusations against others, who were then prosecuted. There was no time limit imposed on the inquiry, only results.

The year was 1478, and the Catholic Rulers Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain appointed the Board of Inquisition, headed by the Grand Inquisitor, to seek out and prosecute heresy, which as defined by the Church, was any deviation from Catholic dogma.